Re: [cgiapp] "Best free DB for a web-based Perl app" response results...
On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 11:17:24AM +0100, Peter J. Holzer wrote: > On 2005-12-01 14:04:04 -0500, Rob Kinyon wrote: > > As for strength ... Oracle just bought the company that owns the > > InnoDB table type. If it wasn't good, Oracle wouldn't have bought it. > > I suspect that Oracle had a very different motivation in buying InnoDB. > Controlling core technology used by your competition comes immediately > to mind. Let's keep this thread on-topic please. Tim.
Re: [cgiapp] "Best free DB for a web-based Perl app" response results...
On 2005-12-01 14:04:04 -0500, Rob Kinyon wrote: > As for strength ... Oracle just bought the company that owns the > InnoDB table type. If it wasn't good, Oracle wouldn't have bought it. I suspect that Oracle had a very different motivation in buying InnoDB. Controlling core technology used by your competition comes immediately to mind. hp -- _ | Peter J. Holzer| If I wanted to be "academically correct", |_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | I'd be programming in Java. | | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | I don't, and I'm not. __/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- Jesse Erlbaum on dbi-users pgpjRE0CURMEk.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [cgiapp] "Best free DB for a web-based Perl app" response results...
On Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 14:05:17 -0500, "Jesse Erlbaum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hey Jeff -- > > Regarding teh rest of your email, I have got to agree with you, most > > web apps use way more resources than they could possibly need, but you > > know what ? As a counter to your argument if you needed Oracle you'd > > just use Oracle VS PgSQL, in my life, if i only needed MySQL, i'd use > > SQL Lite. > > I really don't think your "SQL Lite" analogy is a valid one. Oracle, > PgSQL and MySQL are hugely popular. SQL Lite is a skunk works with no > proven track record. > > Quick Google hits check: > > 2,250,000 for "Oracle" +rdbms > 756,000 for "MySQL" +rdbms > 384,000 for "PostgreSQL" +rdbms > 207 for "SQL Lite" +rdbms > Not that this really matters much , but you get a few more hits if you spell it correctly... "Results 1 - 10 of about 3,000,000 for SQLite." Dave > A bit of a straw man, wouldn't you say? > > -Jesse- >
Re: [cgiapp] "Best free DB for a web-based Perl app" response results...
Aaron Dancygier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just look at the list of companies that use mysql. Would google and yahoo
use it if it werent up to par?
Corporate entities (i.e. corporate managers) make decisions that are not
always generated from the same motivations as the rest of us. Google and Yahoo
using mysql does make a great endorsement, yes. But that's all it is. As a
fan of philosophy and deductive reasoning, I have been getting great joy over
the past year or so in noticing and pointing out 'deductive fallacies' whenever
they are made in public. Politics is ripe with them as are internet SIGs.
For those unfamiliar, this leap in reasoning is known as Argumentum ad
Verecundiam fallacy ("Argument from respect/modesty", Latin - a.k.a. Appeal to
Authority) or perhaps it might even fall under Ipse Dixit ("He, himself, said
it", Latin) fallacy. Similarly, to point out MySQL as being a better choice
simply because more people use it (dare I remind you of the popularity of
windows xp or internet explorer?) is an Ad Populum fallacy. How's about
because it has been around longer? (I don't know if it has or not, but that
would be Ad Antiquatum fallacy)
In summation, a fallacy is something that inspires an unjustified leap in
drawing a conclusion based on something that is not logically deduced based on
the premises. In short, I prefer to stick to the facts - not popularity
contests or the like.
SW
-
Yahoo! Personals
Single? There's someone we'd like you to meet.
Lots of someones, actually. Yahoo! Personals
RE: [cgiapp] "Best free DB for a web-based Perl app" response results...
At 2:05 PM -0500 12/1/05, Jesse Erlbaum wrote: I really don't think your "SQL Lite" analogy is a valid one. Oracle, PgSQL and MySQL are hugely popular. SQL Lite is a skunk works with no proven track record. Quick Google hits check: 2,250,000 for "Oracle" +rdbms 756,000 for "MySQL" +rdbms 384,000 for "PostgreSQL" +rdbms 207 for "SQL Lite" +rdbms A bit of a straw man, wouldn't you say? I just *had* to reply to this one. You made one of the biggest argument mistakes possible, which is basing judgement on blatently incorrect data. Namely, you spelled "SQLite" wrong, so of course Google wouldn't find it. Given the correct spelling, you would get *101,000* hits for SQLite + rdbms. While lesser than the others, its still the same order of magnitude as MySQL or PostgreSQL. 2,260,000 for: Oracle rdbms 740,000 for: MySQL rdbms 431,000 for: Postgres rdbms (which also returns 'PostgreSQL' numbers 101,000 for: SQLite rdbms SQLite is also far from a skunk works project and has a strong proven track record. It has been around for a long time and being used in a huge number of applications and devices. (Most recently, its even built into Mac OS X 10.4 for its Core Data component.) Many uses aren't even advertised, since it is public domain and users don't have to say they're using it. It also has dozens of active developers and a very busy mailing list. Its inventer, D Richard Hipp, was also honored with a top award at OSCON this year due to SQLite being one of the strongest movers and benefits to the open source community. So some criticism of SQLite is warranted, such a scalability with lots of writers, but not what you said. -- Darren Duncan
Re: [cgiapp] "Best free DB for a web-based Perl app" response results...
Maybe you should try its correct spelling, SQLite :) On 12/1/05, Jesse Erlbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hey Jeff -- > > > Regarding teh rest of your email, I have got to agree with you, most > > web apps use way more resources than they could possibly need, but you > > know what ? As a counter to your argument if you needed Oracle you'd > > just use Oracle VS PgSQL, in my life, if i only needed MySQL, i'd use > > SQL Lite. > > I really don't think your "SQL Lite" analogy is a valid one. Oracle, > PgSQL and MySQL are hugely popular. SQL Lite is a skunk works with no > proven track record. > > > Quick Google hits check: > > 2,250,000 for "Oracle" +rdbms > 756,000 for "MySQL" +rdbms > 384,000 for "PostgreSQL" +rdbms > 207 for "SQL Lite" +rdbms > > > A bit of a straw man, wouldn't you say? > > -Jesse- > > > -- > > Jesse Erlbaum > The Erlbaum Group > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Phone: 212-684-6161 > Fax: 212-684-6226 > >
RE: [cgiapp] "Best free DB for a web-based Perl app" response results...
Hey Jeff -- > Regarding teh rest of your email, I have got to agree with you, most > web apps use way more resources than they could possibly need, but you > know what ? As a counter to your argument if you needed Oracle you'd > just use Oracle VS PgSQL, in my life, if i only needed MySQL, i'd use > SQL Lite. I really don't think your "SQL Lite" analogy is a valid one. Oracle, PgSQL and MySQL are hugely popular. SQL Lite is a skunk works with no proven track record. Quick Google hits check: 2,250,000 for "Oracle" +rdbms 756,000 for "MySQL" +rdbms 384,000 for "PostgreSQL" +rdbms 207 for "SQL Lite" +rdbms A bit of a straw man, wouldn't you say? -Jesse- -- Jesse Erlbaum The Erlbaum Group [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: 212-684-6161 Fax: 212-684-6226
Re: [cgiapp] "Best free DB for a web-based Perl app" response results...
> > I would just like to note that speed and reliability are largely > dependent on the transaction profile of your application. If your > application is read heavy, MySQL is a sound choice. However if your > application consists mostly of database writes, PostgreSQL's MVCC [1] > architecture and row-level locking capabilities will generally provide > superior performance and reliability to MySQL. The InnoDB tabletype, which is the only tabletype that should be used for storing real data when doing enterprise-level work, provides row-level locking and complete ACID transactions. InnoDB also provides MVCC architecture. As for strength ... Oracle just bought the company that owns the InnoDB table type. If it wasn't good, Oracle wouldn't have bought it. A quick primer for those who don't know MySQL from a DBA's perspective: There are four primary tabletypes - MyISAM, InnoDB, Heap, and NDB. (There are others, but you won't use them.) * The default is MyISAM, which is non-transactional, but extremely fast. It requires table-level locks for concurrency, but you're not going to use it if you need concurrency. This is the tabletype that provides MySQL with its reputation for blazing-fast reads. * Heap tables are temporary in-memory. These guys are even faster than MyISAM tables, but with no permanency. They also do not provide any sort of transaction capabilities. * InnoDB tables are the enterprise tabletype. They provide complete ACID, foreign keys, and use MVCC. Because of this, they are slower than MyISAM or Heap tables. Whenever I design an app that uses MySQL tables, about 90% of them are InnoDB. The rest are MyISAM (for things like sessions and logs - items that never have concurrency issues). * NDB tables are MySQL's clustering table type. They provide complete ACID and MVCC architecture. Because of these options, I can tune my tables according to my need. Not everything requires ACID or MVCC. Those are features that have a performance cost. But, the nice thing is that I can do a query against tables that have different tabletypes. So, I can query a MyISAM joined to a InnoDB, if I wanted. Hopefully this will reduce the FUD. Rob
Re: [cgiapp] "Best free DB for a web-based Perl app" response results...
> in the next release. However, PgSQL is still slow, hard to use, and of > questionable reliability. Slow, i'm not going to argue cause it's "fast enough for me" and I don't have numbers. Hard to use ? What do you find hard ? I find it aboslutly devine to use, and mysql to be cludgy and awkward. The reason for that is cause of my experience and familiarity, I don't blame MySQL. Questionable Reliability : Where did this come from ? Over the past 6 years I've been writing webapps, postgres has never screwed up on me... I think your claim is a highly personal opinion. Regarding teh rest of your email, I have got to agree with you, most web apps use way more resources than they could possibly need, but you know what ? As a counter to your argument if you needed Oracle you'd just use Oracle VS PgSQL, in my life, if i only needed MySQL, i'd use SQL Lite. It's a holy war folks, w.a.r. = we are right. that's how they get started :) Jeff.
Re: [cgiapp] "Best free DB for a web-based Perl app" response results...
Jesse Erlbaum wrote: Hi John -- The clear choice from these responses is Postgres because of its internal strength over MySql I've used both MySQL and PgSQL. I've also used Oracle, Sybase, DB2, MS SQL Server, and Informix. I've also been developing web apps for quite a long time, so I feel my opinions carry *some* weight. That being said, my preference is still MySQL. ... And, BTW: Nearly all those advanced, "academically correct" features which people point to when pimping PgSQL (row-level locking, stored procs, transactions, triggers, ref. integrity checking, clustering, etc.) are available for MySQL right now, or are slated to be available in the next release. However, PgSQL is still slow, hard to use, and of questionable reliability. I would just like to note that speed and reliability are largely dependent on the transaction profile of your application. If your application is read heavy, MySQL is a sound choice. However if your application consists mostly of database writes, PostgreSQL's MVCC [1] architecture and row-level locking capabilities will generally provide superior performance and reliability to MySQL. Kind Regards, - Fred [1] - MVCC means that you don't have to worry about writers blocking readers or readers blocking writers.
RE: [cgiapp] "Best free DB for a web-based Perl app" response results...
Hey Fred -- > I would just like to note that speed and reliability are largely > dependent on the transaction profile of your application. If your > application is read heavy, MySQL is a sound choice. However if your > application consists mostly of database writes, PostgreSQL's MVCC [1] > architecture and row-level locking capabilities will > generally provide > superior performance and reliability to MySQL. I question your assertion that PgSQL's row-level locking is faster than MySQL's row-level locking. I'd like to see actual benchmarks before saying that one particular approch is faster than another. -Jesse-
Re: [cgiapp] "Best free DB for a web-based Perl app" response results...
Jesse Erlbaum wrote: Hey Fred -- I would just like to note that speed and reliability are largely dependent on the transaction profile of your application. If your application is read heavy, MySQL is a sound choice. However if your application consists mostly of database writes, PostgreSQL's MVCC [1] architecture and row-level locking capabilities will generally provide superior performance and reliability to MySQL. I question your assertion that PgSQL's row-level locking is faster than MySQL's row-level locking. I'd like to see actual benchmarks before saying that one particular approch is faster than another. Fair enough. I will put together a benchmark using DBI and make the source and results open for review. I don't believe there currently any credible benchmarks in existence which can answer this question accurately.
Re: [cgiapp] "Best free DB for a web-based Perl app" response results...
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 12:24:12PM -0500, Jesse Erlbaum wrote: > Hi John -- > > > The clear choice from these responses is Postgres because of > > its internal > > strength over MySql > > I've used both MySQL and PgSQL. I've also used Oracle, Sybase, DB2, MS > SQL Server, and Informix. I've also been developing web apps for quite > a long time, so I feel my opinions carry *some* weight. Just look at the list of companies that use mysql. Would google and yahoo use it if it werent up to par? > > That, in a nutshell, is MySQL. Features such as "offset/limit" (which > were practically invented by MySQL, which are not standard SQL, which > don't exist in Oracle, and only exist in PgSQL because they were so > damned useful) are a classic example of why MySQL is the most popular > database in the whole world for web applications. It is the right tool > for the job. Same with the "auto increment" columns. A feature which > didn't exist in Oracle-like databases, but was a practical solution > which made life that much more easy. Dont forget that time(less typing) saving replace command. > > There are dozens of other examples like these (such as the MySQL > interactive shell, which beats the pants off of sqlplus, or mysqldump > which annihilates pg_dump). The theme here is that MySQL was created to > be three things: > > 1. Simple > 2. Reliable > 3. Fast > > Let's not forget that the "P" in Perl stands for "Practical". PgSQL was > created as an academic exercise: "Can we write our own Oracle?" If I > wanted to be "academically correct", I'd be programming in Java. I > don't, and I'm not. > > > And, BTW: Nearly all those advanced, "academically correct" features > which people point to when pimping PgSQL (row-level locking, stored > procs, transactions, triggers, ref. integrity checking, clustering, > etc.) are available for MySQL right now, or are slated to be available > in the next release. However, PgSQL is still slow, hard to use, and of > questionable reliability. MySql has really caught up stored procedures, views, and triggers are new features in 5.0 while replication (since 3.xx), clustering (since 4.1), transactional table types (innodb since 3.xx), have been around for a while. Even with all these new features mysql is still blazing fast. Aaron Dancygier
RE: [cgiapp] "Best free DB for a web-based Perl app" response results...
Hi John -- > The clear choice from these responses is Postgres because of > its internal > strength over MySql I've used both MySQL and PgSQL. I've also used Oracle, Sybase, DB2, MS SQL Server, and Informix. I've also been developing web apps for quite a long time, so I feel my opinions carry *some* weight. That being said, my preference is still MySQL. First off, if I want/need Oracle functionality, I'll just use Oracle. When you compare PgSQL to Oracle on "internal strength", it's a no-brainer. Nobody is going to argue that PgSQL is better than Oracle. In fact, PgSQL isn't better than any of the other so-called "ACID" databases I mention above. And some of those databases are free (or very nearly so) for small sites. The biggest criticism that I've heard leveled at MySQL is that "...it's not ACID. It's more like a file system with a SQL interface." After 10 years developing web/database apps, I've discovered that 80% of the time, that is exactly what you need. Web applications are software, but they are very notably different from client-server software. One of the most significant differences is that the web is stateless. This means that some advanced features, such as transactions and cursors are not generally applicable. If I was writing a client-server application I would have a stateful connection, through which I could use a cursor to step through results, or hold a transaction open. That is not the case on the web. On the web, when a page is rendered, the application stack is effectively terminated. That's not to say you *couldn't* devise some scheme to simulate statefulness. You simply would not *want* to. On the web, every request has to contain all the information needed to fully articulate a transaction. That means, you need a FAST database with the tools necessary to get the job done. That, in a nutshell, is MySQL. Features such as "offset/limit" (which were practically invented by MySQL, which are not standard SQL, which don't exist in Oracle, and only exist in PgSQL because they were so damned useful) are a classic example of why MySQL is the most popular database in the whole world for web applications. It is the right tool for the job. Same with the "auto increment" columns. A feature which didn't exist in Oracle-like databases, but was a practical solution which made life that much more easy. There are dozens of other examples like these (such as the MySQL interactive shell, which beats the pants off of sqlplus, or mysqldump which annihilates pg_dump). The theme here is that MySQL was created to be three things: 1. Simple 2. Reliable 3. Fast Let's not forget that the "P" in Perl stands for "Practical". PgSQL was created as an academic exercise: "Can we write our own Oracle?" If I wanted to be "academically correct", I'd be programming in Java. I don't, and I'm not. And, BTW: Nearly all those advanced, "academically correct" features which people point to when pimping PgSQL (row-level locking, stored procs, transactions, triggers, ref. integrity checking, clustering, etc.) are available for MySQL right now, or are slated to be available in the next release. However, PgSQL is still slow, hard to use, and of questionable reliability. > Also, Postgres is much more Oracle-like in syntax than > MySql, so if we should ever graduate to big-daddy-Oracle, we > can do that > easier. I'd like to shoot this idea down pretty quick: The idea that you might "graduate" to Oracle. I'd like to point to an article in InfoWorld just two weeks ago: http://weblog.infoworld.com/article/05/11/17/47FEmainmigrate_1.html The article is about migrating from a mainframe computer. I direct your attention to page two: "Sabre Pushes the Limits. Sabre Holdings -- parent of the Travelocity online consumer booking service and the Sabre travel reservations and ticketing system, which handles about 40 percent of worldwide travel reservations -- is in the midst of one of the largest mainframe migrations. Todd Richmond, the company's vice president of enterprise architecture, says Sabre has the world's third-largest implementation of IBM TPF (Transaction Processing Facility) mainframes. In an effort that began almost six years ago, however, Sabre has migrated most of its domestic booking services to four-way, Intel (Profile, Products, Articles) Itanium-based HP (Profile, Products, Articles) NonStop servers and a cluster of HP Integrity Itanium-based servers running 64-bit Red Hat (Profile, Products, Articles) Linux and the MySQL database." The article goes on to describe what they're doing with MySQL: "...Sabre will continue to use NonStop servers for database transactions because they are able to process the 14,000 transactions per second more reliably across large data sets typical of Sabre's environment" So, there you have it: 14,000 transactions per SECOND, handling 40% of the worldwide travel reservations... And all running on MySQL. So, it is possible to
RE: [cgiapp] "Best free DB for a web-based Perl app" response results...
Jesse Erlbaum - thanks much for your very insightful comments - we stand corrected - we're back in the MySql camp!!! - John Armstrong - Sacramento
Re: [cgiapp] "Best free DB for a web-based Perl app" response results...
From: John Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >There was cross-agreement that Postgres is slower than MySql, Maybe this is irrelevant, but... don't forget to consider which data is primarily read-only and might be faster served from a caching system (optimized for reads instead of writes/transactions) like SleepyCat or the much simpler Perl module Cache::Cache (search CPAN, or Perl-cache on Sourceforge. I've used 1.04. There's a newer version but the author said it's a fork and doesn't recommend it.). You can do things to refresh the cache hourly or daily (as a batch job) and alleviate some load on your database. I only mentioned it because you mentioned performance a couple times. Mark
